« Exposing a Bad Idea | Main | Steroids and science» Russell Roberts
December 14, 2007
Clemens vindicated
Russell Roberts
The uproar this morning is that Roger Clemens, someone who everyone agrees is one of the best pitchers of all time, is a cheater, a steroids user going back to 1998. His reputation is ruined, he may not make the Hall of Fame, and according to Thomas Boswell, one of the deans of America's baseball scribes, he's like Pete Rose, Barry Bonds or maybe even Shoeless Joe Jackson in that his name will never be the same:
Now, Roger Clemens joins Barry Bonds in baseball's version of hell. It's a slow burn that lasts a lifetime, then, after death, lingers as long as the game is played and tongues can wag. In baseball, a man's triumphs and his sins are immortal. The pursuit of one often leads to the other. And those misdeeds are seldom as dark as their endless punishment.
Shoeless Joe Jackson, an illiterate outfielder who hit like a demon in the 1919 World Series, but neglected to blow the whistle on his crooked teammates, died with his good name as black as their Sox. Pete Rose, who bet on his team, but never against it, finally confessed. It could be good for his soul, and buys him dinner at my house any night, but may never get him into Cooperstown. Now, they have company: two giants of our time, just as humbled, though no less tarnished.
Why does no one seem to understand that if many and maybe most of the batters are taking steroids, a pitcher who takes steroids is leveling the playing field, not getting an unfair advantage?
BTW, I'm a Red Sox fan. Clemens left the Red Sox in 1997 saying he wanted to be closer to his family in Texas, then signed with the Toronto Blue Jays, a team not known for its proximity to the Lone Star state. Red Sox fans have always resented his exit, particularly given what followed. He proceeded to have what was arguably his best single season as a pitcher, throwing 264 innings and posting an ERA of 2.05 when the league ERA was 4.53, An astounding steroids-free performance.
Halfway through the 1998 season, when we know that a lot of batters started using steroids, Clemens, according the Mitchell Report released yesterday, started using steroids as well. He pitched extremely well in 1998, but nothing close to his 1997 performance.
Clemens's steroid use in 1998 tarnishes his reputation? How exactly? To suggest that his failure to blow the whistle on teammates or fellow players outside his team is to misunderstand the culture of athletes. And to compare him to Shoeless Joe Jackson for not blowing the whistle is a repugnant comparison. Boswell conveniently fails to mention that Jackson (who I do sympathize with, given his on-field performance in that 1919 World Series) took money under the expectation that he would deliberately play poorly. His failure had nothing to do with whistle-blowing.
Yesterday's report shouldn't tarnish Clemens or his teammate Andy Pettitte, or the other 80 or so names mentioned. The report relied on FOUR sources, a clubhouse guy for the Blue Jays, a clubhouse guy for the Mets, the Balco investigation and various news stories that have found evidence of steroid use. The number of sources wasn't low because they were the main sources. The number was low because virtually no one wanted to talk to Mitchell. The sources he used were already under investigation. That means that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
What we now know is that steroid use was widespread, extremely widespread, in major league baseball beginning in 1998. The effects of steroids and HGH (which was also widely used) on performance are unclear. Yes, great players took steroids to get an edge. But so did mediocre players. It didn't make them great either because everyone was taking them or because the extra impact on performance was small.
When everyone cheats, it's not cheating any more.
You can judge a man morally for having so much competitive fire that he flaunts the rules and endangers his health. I think that's particularly strange when the rules are not enforced as they were not in 1998.
But even so, what yesterday's report makes clear to me is that you can't judge a man's reputation as a baseball player because he used something that so many other people were using in search of an edge. For me, the "scandal" of steroid use is now a smaller story, even though it is all over today's front pages.
Roger, you'll never be as good as Pedro, but you belong in the Hall of Fame. I wish I could vote. And of course, in some sense, I can. I believe that in 20 years, the consensus among fans will be that Roger Clemens was one of the greatest pitchers of all time, without an asterisk. And Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire will join the same true pantheon of greatness even if they never get to Cooperstown.
Posted by Russell Roberts in Competition, Sports | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e54fb779e38834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clemens vindicated:
Comments
First of all, your contention that the use is "widespread" and that everybody was/is cheating is certainly countered by the likes of Frank Thomas. I'd bet (as would Pete Rose, I'm sure) that the number is higher than the 10% of MLB players that they'd like us to believe, especially if you add HGH to the mix, but it's not 100%.
So Clemens may have taken some illegal/banned substance to level the playing field against Bonds, McGwire, Gregg Zahn, etc., but it certainly gave him an unfair advantage over the Frank Thomases of the world.
The biggest problem for MLB is what do they do with this report? None of the allegations made in it will stand up to legal scrutiny - hearsay "testimony" sans strong evidence....no cross-examination of the two key witnesses, who may or may not be disgruntled former employees. It seems to me that Clemens, et al, may have grounds for a lawsuit.
A key part of this Pandora's Box are what to do with the records that have been set. What do you do....reinstate Roger Maris as the single-season home run king? Do they have proof against Bonds...McGwire...Sosa...in the years when they set the records and that would stand up to legal scrutiny? How far back do you go? Does Ken Caminiti get stripped of his MVP? Do you go back to investigate Howard Johnson in the 1980s?
And what does Selig do going forward? The proposal that MLB have a Dept. of Investigation is laughable. The overarching problem is that there's no good test for a lot of the banned/illegal substances out there.....what do they do?
This is nothing but one huge mess, and I've got no confidence in the MLB, and certainly none in the politicians, to straighten any of it out.
Posted by: tw | Dec 14, 2007 8:58:07 AM
"Why does no one seem to understand that if many and maybe most of the batters are taking steroids, a pitcher who takes steroids is leveling the playing field, not getting an unfair advantage?"
But still there's some players who follow the rules. Seems like there's a great analogy with markets and wealth. Bending the rules... crossing the line using lobbyist, campaign money, hedge funds, market speculation, insider trading, back dating stocks, no -bid contracts...while a well intended school teacher educates our kids and just gets by.
How many homeruns would Bonds have if he never used steroids? What would Clemens ERA have been, his total wins? his total K's?
When we justify cheating , bending the rules over doing the right thing then indeed greed has taken over society. Greed has a utility but the purpose of society is to over see it. Yeah, I used to be a baseball fan when I was a kid. Growing up in the 60's with the Cardinals...Lou Brock, Bob Gibson, Orlando Cepeda (now my neighbor)....no steroids. Now with all this the sport has absolutely no meaning or use for me except to get the crowd going the opposite direction as me. It has utility for some I suspect and does no harm at least. But markets cheaters..... they steal from hard working teachers, they steal from our bridges and roads .... the people who matter.
Posted by: muirgeo | Dec 14, 2007 9:07:30 AM
tw,
How do you know Frank Thomas is clean? But I do accept your point that not everyone is a cheater.
Maybe steroids aren't as potent as everyone seems to think. If Thomas is clean, he managed to have a Hall of Fame career without using steroids despite widespread use by others. He made an enormous amount of money benefiting from the interest in baseball created in 1998 by Sosa and McGwire. And he's got his health. So don't feel too sorry for him.
Posted by: Russ Roberts | Dec 14, 2007 9:29:41 AM
So if a couple of students cheat on one of your exams, it is ok for all of the students to cheat to level the playing field?
Are you going to put that on next semester's syllabi?
Doubt it.
Posted by: save_the_rustbelt | Dec 14, 2007 9:45:52 AM
Rationalized like a true fan. What does it matter whether steroids were really all that effective? Obviously Clemens believed they were, or he wouldn't have taken them given the risks.
Posted by: Joshua Macy | Dec 14, 2007 9:46:54 AM
How do I know that Frank Thomas is clean?
Because the media, who loves to tear people down and expose hypocrites, has not been able to find one piece of evidence, nor anybody associated with MLB to allege anything against Frank Thomas. And Big Frank has been speaking out against the illegal/banned substances for years, and has actually been a proponent of more rigorous testing within MLB.
I think we all remember Rafael Palmeiro wagging his finger during the Congressional hearing saying he never used the stuff. How long did it take for evidence against him to surface??? Now he's completely discredited.
As I recall, Thomas testified at the same hearing, though by closed-circuit TV. It seems to me that if there were any smoke, the media would have blown it up big time. To date, nothing.
And I don't feel sorry for Frank, nor any of the parties, all of whom have made more money in MLB through the years. I view this whole battle being more over whom to blame (the owners vs. the players) than actually trying to find a solution to the mess, which only continues to get bigger and bigger.
The only point you could possibly feel sorry for Frank about is that his achievement of 500 home runs gets overshadowed because of the steroid-induced totals of other players during the same time frame. Would he have been more celebrated as a home run king? Could that have led to more money/higher salaries/more endorsements for him? Would that have made him a lock for the Hall of Fame? It's another issue in this huge mess.
As an aside, for the first time in many posts, I agree with Save the Rustbelt's analogy about students cheating on tests. Good one!
Posted by: tw | Dec 14, 2007 10:08:39 AM
Save the Rustbelt,
I proctor my exams. I stay in the room and I don't read. I walk around and keep an eye on what people are doing.
If I left the room after handing out the exam, I wouldn't be surprised that people cheated.
Baseball left the room. They didn't test. It was a rule that had no meaning. Maybe they should have, maybe they shouldn't have. In that situation, I'm not surprised that people cheated.
But the real point of the post was that the impact on the statistics is much smaller than we might have thought.
Joshua Macy,
There is no evidence that HGH improves performance. There's a lot of evidence that it does nothing. Yet people took it hoping it might help. I think they were nuts. But then again, I'm not a world class athlete in a multi-million dollar salary world. I'm not surprised that people tried it. Make your own judgment about how it affects the data. Remember that we have only discovered a fraction of who did what.
Posted by: Russ Roberts | Dec 14, 2007 10:11:35 AM
rustbelt, you're talking apples and oranges. Cheating on an exam would involve doing something to inappropriately acquire answers that you wouldn't have otherwise had (looking at someone else's paper, storing answers in your calculator, etc). The school equivalent of the baseball 'scandal' would involve students taking some sort of chemical to enhance their natural mental performance. That could be anything from a multivitamin to caffeine to fish oil to any of the latest brain-boosting (supposedly) drugs on the market. There's nothing wrong with that, just as I see nothing wrong with an athlete doing similar things to enhance their physical performance.
Posted by: Darren | Dec 14, 2007 10:18:56 AM
"Why does no one seem to understand that if many and maybe most of the batters are taking steroids, a pitcher who takes steroids is leveling the playing field, not getting an unfair advantage?"
What's funny is that I heard this same rationalization a couple of days ago, but in reverse: Barry Bonds was justified in taking steroids because he was going up against pitchers like Clemens that were also juicing and he was just doing what he had to do to compete.
Posted by: mith | Dec 14, 2007 10:58:01 AM
Well I'm surprised and not surprised. Not at all surprised that this is your position, absolutely shocked that I even remotely agree with muirgeo or rustbelt on anything.
Is Clemens' behavior as bad as it would be if "nobody else was doing it" and he obtained a competitive advantage over 100% of the other players? No. But is he "vindicated"? Hardly. One thing you and other apologists conveniently ignore is that Clemens wasn't just cheating opposing batters, or the history books, or "the fans" in some metaphysical sense, he was cheating every pitcher who competed with him for a spot on a major league roster.
Clemens and the others were literally taking employment and cold hard cash from those who would have earned those roster spots and bonuses if Clemens and others were not taking performance enhancing drugs. This is no different than one of my law school classmates cheating on an exam (taking my rightful grade, my class rank, some percentage of my future employment and salary prospects). The fact that I could do it too (or the fact that others do, as I have no doubt they do) is not vindication. And the fact that you believe it is says more about you than it does about Clemens.
Posted by: Nick | Dec 14, 2007 11:01:59 AM
I guess I have to cast my lot with muirgeo and rustbelt, although I wonder if the latter would have allowed all of those foreign players to take jobs from American players anyway.
I see baseball's steroid issue as hangover from the 1990's ethic. Baseball has a unique place in American culture. During the Post WW I era, there was a great deal of corruption in American society, yet only the Black Sox scandal is remembered. In the 1980's, cocaine use was rampant but only became a big issue when baseball players were found to be doing it. During the 1990's, as long as the economy and stock market were booming and popular baseball players were breaking home run records nobody cared about the Clinton Scandal Machine, cooked books at major corporations, or steroids. Now we get set to return the Clintons to power and CDO's are getting written down by the billions and all one can talk about are those horrible baseball players.
Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Dec 14, 2007 11:22:16 AM
I am not a huge baseball fan, but this post is the pits that too from a professor/teacher of economics. Sports is the celebration of physical endurance and mental strength. Anything and anyone crossing the ethical boundary line is an act of cheating. The law is not relative. If you are caught speeding at 80 mph in a 60 mph zone and you tell the officer everyone else was doing it, guess what the officer/judge is going to say? That's right - pay the fine or penalty.
As for the arguement that Russ fully expects his students may cheat when not proctored makes me wonder this - so let's say Russ had to step away from protcoring from an exam for whatever reason and couldn't find a replacement i.e. the students are on an honor system now. In due course the exam is graded and the results are declared. Say a few months later Russ finds out many of the students actually cheated. What are you going to do Russ?
Posted by: Saum | Dec 14, 2007 11:32:51 AM
A clarification: Not all students cheated but many did. What are you going to do as a teacher?
Posted by: Saum | Dec 14, 2007 11:34:04 AM
A correction: Russ says he wouldn't be surprised that the students cheated. Which is not the same as he fully expects them to cheat. My question still stands, even when he won't be surprised.
Posted by: Saum | Dec 14, 2007 11:39:30 AM
Everyone here is focusing on the moral issue. You are all correct about that. Cheating is wrong. I teach my children not to cheat. I try not to cheat on my taxes because I think it's wrong to impose costs on others. (The word "try" is in there because my guess is that most people do not pay the "right" amount given the complexity of the code.) The fact that "everybody" cheats on their taxes does not justify one's own dishonesty.
My main point in the post is that Clemens's numbers (and Bonds and others) are not as inflated by steroids as people once thought.
But having said that, I'm also having a contrarian reaction to the moral indignation part of the steroids scandal. Part of the reason for my reaction is that so many people used steroids who didn't get caught in this report.
Part of it is that people seem to get a great amount of pleasure from judging others. That's why I mentioned being a Red Sox fan. I know some people love hating Clemens and this report is just the icing on the cake. I think they're wrong and the 1997 numbers make the point--Roger Clemens for some reason, became a better pitcher after he left the Red Sox and it probably had more to do with dieting and conditioning than it did with steroids.
But part of it is that it's a little strange how angry some fans are about this being unfair or about stealing jobs from honest players. But the people who should be angry are the athletes. But they're pretty quiet. Why aren't they complaining? Why didn't they leak more info to the press? Other than Canseco (who leaked) and Schilling (who complains), the players are pretty quiet. Why? A couple of reasons, I think. One is the code. You don't rat on teammates or your fellow players even on another team. Good code or bad, I don't know but it's the code. The second reason is that steroids don't appear to be as big an advantage as people want to believe. They don't help you throw 100 mph. They don't let you hit a home run every time. They let some great players get better. They let some players heal more quickly.
Paxton Crawford, a mediocre Red Sox pitcher, tells the story in the Mitchell Report of accidentally dropping some syringes on the floor of the locker room and people laughing. They didn't react in horror. They didn't view him as a child molester. They didn't call the police or tell the manager. No pitcher competing with him for a roster spot shoved him up against a wall and said, "You're taking food from my family." His teammates thought it was funny and probably a little pitiful. I think they were right.
Posted by: Russ Roberts | Dec 14, 2007 11:42:59 AM
Once artifical limbs become more effective, none of this steroid garbage will matter anymore.
I welcome our new cyborg masters.
Posted by: Al | Dec 14, 2007 12:12:23 PM
Sorry, but I don't see cheating as being the problem with steroid use. The problem is health. Specifically, the health of young athletes inspired by their heroes. Personally, professional athletes aren't my idea of a hero, but to some they are. I'm not even saying that the professionals have a "responsibility" - just that there is a real problem - and that it should be addressed by those who are responsible.
Posted by: Randy | Dec 14, 2007 12:39:40 PM
I really like your website, but I have to disagree on this. How do you know the numbers are not largely inflated by steroids? Just because Clemens had a good year in 1997 is kind of weak evidence. He still has more career wins than anybody since 1965 and alot of those happened after 1998. This is all assuming he started using steroids in 1998. Also, 10 of the top 13 seasons for a player, in terms of at-bats per home runs, have been since 1997. The other three were all Babe Ruth. There have been an unusual number of remarkable seasons in the last 10 years. I don't know how you can tell if steroids is only a minor factor in this.
Posted by: jaw | Dec 14, 2007 12:40:30 PM
The suggestion that steroids don't provide a significant advantage is laughable. I'd expect an economist to key on this: why would so many rational people risk so much (health, reputation, prison) for something that you apparently believe provides only an insignificant competitive advantage?
I wonder how much of a justification "everybody else was doing it" really is? Does that excuse also "vindicate" "troubled homeowners" who lied about their income to get a mortgage?
Posted by: Nick | Dec 14, 2007 1:05:03 PM
Russ,
I think focusing on this issue too abstracts from an even bigger one which makes your case as well.
What exactly is “natural” as it pertains to athletic performance? Something strikes us as not quite right about taking a drug which will enable an athlete to be faster or stronger or better able to endure stress. But what about other things athletes might do to achieve the same goals? When I played football I restricted my diet to be heavy in proteins, I lifted weights to an excessive degree, I did plyometrics and took vitamin-B supplements. I ran quite a bit and mentally prepared myself for every practice and game in a variety of ways. How much of that activity is natural? Surely plyometrics is not something early humans practiced. Surely taking vitamin B supplements is not something that we do when we exit the womb. So where do we draw the line and who is to be doing the drawing? Is our revulsion to drugs simply a function of their illegality (stop and ask WHY they are illegal)? Is it because they are deemed to be too easy a way to achieve fitness goals? If so, then we ought to ban Lipitor - that’s an unnatural way of keeping our cholesterol lower. If so, then we ought to ban dietary supplements - those are an unnatural way to lose weight. And how do we feel about surgery? Surely it is not natural to be cutting each other open to take out the bad things that naturally grew in there.
The fervor over “performance-enhancing drugs” has allowed passions to get the better part of reason. I’ve yet to see a consistent and principled discussion of what exactly the problem is, and I sure would like to persuade people to think harder about what it is about steroids, HGH and the like that is so disturbing to them. Yes they are dangerous, but the athletes know that and when Roger Clemens takes steroids, he is not making YOU unhealthy. And if the contention is that these athletes are getting rich because they are taking drugs and others are not (and others do not because the risks to them outweigh the benefits), then why don’t we ban extreme skiing? Or surfing? Or NASCAR? After all, people get rich pursuing these dangerous activities too, don’t they? Stock cars are unsafe. Stock cars use lots of gas. Stock cars actually injure spectators on occassion. And stock car teams try to gain every advantage they can. Where is the Mitchell report on NASCAR?
Posted by: wintercow20 | Dec 14, 2007 1:29:49 PM
Nick,
Just posted on the science. Athletes do lots of things in hope of getting an edge. A lot is at stake. I don't think they had a lot of information on the costs and benefits.
"Everyone doing it" is no justification for an immoral act. Telling a lie on a loan application usually brings consequences. Whether it will this time or not remains to be seen.
But "everyone doing it" often defines what is moral and what is immoral. I am suggesting as I did in a post long ago that I will re-post soon, that there is a distinction between law and legislation, what is considered acceptable and what is considered illegal. There are many things that are legal that are not moral. There are many illegal things that are.
The question I'm trying to get at is how immoral was it? Did the players who didn't take steroids feel outrage at the cheaters? I'd like to know.
Posted by: Russ Roberts | Dec 14, 2007 1:54:56 PM
I think too many people care too much about professional sports. Hence, the extent of government meddling and public busybodying.
Why does it matter at all?
Pro sports is entertainment to the enrichment of subsidy eating billionaires.
In what other arena of the entertainment industry would we care about enhancement 'cheating'?
If a singer could improve his/er voice with drugs, would anyone give a damn? Or would we just enjoy the improvement?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Dec 14, 2007 2:07:29 PM
Russ, "Did the players who didn't take steroids feel outrage at the cheaters?"
Not trying to beat the Frank Thomas horse again, but in his instance, yes.
And John Smoltz was interviewed today on this issue, and he said he's mad about the cheating. He's been a Player Rep in the union for many years, and he said he's been pushing for tougher testing guidelines all along, at the request of the majority of his teammates.
Also, Smoltz said that it's a small minority of MLB players who use the illegal/banned substances. And he added that the media will no doubt continue to focus on the minority who cheated instead of on the majority who don't.
I also want to add that we're likely to see very few players speak out a la Smoltz because the MLB players are such a tight fraternity. They band together, led by Donald Fehr, and almost never say anything negative about each other in this kind of issue.
Posted by: tw | Dec 14, 2007 2:09:03 PM
"The question I'm trying to get at is how immoral was it?"
Well I can't help you here, and I doubt you'll find a satisfying answer anywhere else either. Mitchell was asked a similar question at the press conference yesterday where he was asked to apportion some percentage of moral responsibility among the players, union, commissioner, and team executives. He declined to do so, I think mostly because it isn't possible to do so in any intelligent way. Similarly, something is either wrong or it isn't and it is really hard to talk intelligently about precisely how wrong it is. For whatever it is worth, the fact that players continue to lie about their conduct long after any reasonable person has any doubt about it must say something about how they themselves view their behavior from a moral point of view.
I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth, but you've repeatedly seemed to suggest that Clemens wasn't wrong to do what he did, that in some way it really was "okay", and that is what I don't agree with. We can all look at mitigating factors and think about how difficult the decision would be if we were in the same position, but no matter how I look at it I can't agree with you that it was/is morally sound (if that indeed is your position).
Posted by: Nick | Dec 14, 2007 2:28:57 PM
Russ, I'm with you, except my angle is more about effectiveness. If the narrative in the Mitchell Report is true, and Clemens had some guy inject him in the buttocks (thanks for the visual George), it sounds to me like Clemens was pretty clueless about how to use the drugs effectively. The discipline of record keeping of diet and exercise times and usage times and sleep needed to make it all work is beyond the realm of mere mortals who want to cheat to be better. The whole thing sounds like a club of vitamin enthusiasts rather than people serious about strengthening their bodies.
Posted by: Brad | Dec 14, 2007 2:35:35 PM
wintercow20/Dr. Rizzo and Sam,
Great points. I'm glad others feel the way I do (thought I was losing my mind there for a minute). There's no more reason to ban steroids and denigrate athletes who use them than there is to ban caffeine and denigrate the student who chugs some coffee before a test. Emotional reactions to things like steroids have hijacked this entire debate and made it meaningless.
Posted by: Darren | Dec 14, 2007 2:35:52 PM
"I am suggesting as I did in a post long ago that I will re-post soon, that there is a distinction between law and legislation, what is considered acceptable and what is considered illegal."
I was actually thinking of that post when reading the comments here. I've used it many times to highlight the differences between what is right and what is legal.
"The question I'm trying to get at is how immoral was it? Did the players who didn't take steroids feel outrage at the cheaters? I'd like to know."
I can't speak for anyone else, everyone seems to have their own individual level of selective moral outrage depending on their level of interest. I couldn't care less about what professional athletes do to themselves for the sake of competition; I find professional sports boring, and don't devote any of my time to them. What bothers me the most about this whole thing is that no one really cares to ask how many of our tax dollars were spent on this stupid investigation. Investigating something that's effectively common knowledge, which even those who weren't participating in didn't seem to be bother by, and which a majority of the players were involved in seems like a waste of time and money.
Posted by: mith | Dec 14, 2007 2:42:39 PM
mith, you're absolutely right. Probably no one's mentioned that because we likely all agree about that (though I could be wrong--possibly some statists lurking here). And not only was it a waste of time and tax dollars, but it was completely inappropriate for the government to get involved at all. Certainly not a legitimate government function by any reasonable (non-statist) standard.
Posted by: Darren | Dec 14, 2007 2:59:21 PM
In order to settle who or who is not using steroids, let's assume that not every steroid user in MLB is on the list released yesterday. If that's the case, then Frank Thomas is just as likely to be a user as anyone else. Therefore, unless we assume the list released is complete we can't say that Thomas is not a user.
Also, Thomas has rebounded back from injury in the last few years and has put up some better numbers than he was in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
Posted by: Chuck | Dec 14, 2007 3:04:03 PM
We should all except that it's the "Steroid Era" forever more. Just like the "Deadball Era" with its elevated mounds, ability to throw at a batter's head, and subsequent lack of homeruns. Ty Cobb was a mysognist, racist, and all around b@stard. He's in the HOF. Mantle was a drunk who undoubtedly took amphetamines as pick me ups after some of his more torid benders. Not sure of my point, I just thought we should note that this is neither the first, or last black eye professional sports will receive. That said, it's been 100 years! Some days I can't help but wish my sCrubs had juiced!
Posted by: Chicagoan | Dec 14, 2007 3:53:39 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/thomafr04.shtml
Chuck,
The above will link to Frank Thomas' career stats, via The Baseball Encyclopedia.
Yes, he's had some pretty bad injuries, starting in 2001...but I don't think you can see anything in there that would make you suspect steroids/illegal substances.
* He didn't hit age 39 and all of the sudden hit 50 home runs for the first time in his career
* His "rebound season" of 2006, his first healthy year since 2003, actually had very similar statistics
But your point is well taken that obviously not all the steroid/illegal substance users were on the list of The Mitchell Report. I'd argue that Frank Thomas is not a prime suspect, again mainly because he's been through "the media rectal exam" after his Congressional testimony. No smoke has been generated with him....none.
Perhaps the next big revelation will actually come from Jose Canseco's next book, which he says he's begun writing. He certainly feels that his claims made in his first book have been vindicated by yesterday's report.
Posted by: tw | Dec 14, 2007 3:53:43 PM
BOBBY DID IT.
I spent years teaching my kids that this was not an excuse and expect every adult to act on this principle.
Why am I not surprised that the GMU economic department things this excuses any behavior.
Grow up.
Posted by: spencer | Dec 14, 2007 6:51:44 PM
Certainly that depends on what Bobby did.
Someone else doing a bad thing does not justify anyone doing that same thing.
But is taking steroids really cheating? That is, before rules were made about it.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Dec 14, 2007 8:06:02 PM
"When everyone cheats, it's not cheating any more."
How would you handle this in the classroom?
Posted by: Babinich | Dec 14, 2007 9:43:57 PM
When everyone cheats, you change the rules. A lot of sporting bodies are slow on the uptake about this. The time, energy, and money spent on drug testing, fending off publicity, court cases, all could be put to some other use if athletes were allowed to use any drug or growth hormone they wanted. There's no way you can seek out every drug-taker in sport, so why even go there? This thing about rooting out drugs from sport is some kind of dysfunctional utopian view. It pays lip service to the purest idea of sport without being rooted in reality. Makes for great speeches, but nothing else.
The stigma of being a drug-taker seems pointless when the player's record is kept intact. You can't alter stats, so what can you really do about it except say, "He's got an asterix against his name"? Isn't it a bit pointless?
Posted by: Rahul Bhatia | Dec 15, 2007 4:57:04 AM
Russ,
I can't believe you wrote this sentence.
"When everyone cheats, it's not cheating any more."
You and Don typically demonstrate really great ability to think and lay out your points clearly and succinctly and that is one reason I read your blog daily.
But, man, that was terrible! That was not thinking that was justification. The same sort of justification you have spoken against in other topics so many times.
You can tell us that steriod use is not cheating anymore than using eyeglasses or contact lens is. No more than multi-vitamens are, etc. and I'll agree with you because I share the same opinion.
But you walked the plank with that sentence.
Wrong doesn't become right because of winning a popularity contest. If you accept that premise then you might as well give up your stance against the nanny state, because the nanny state is always going to be more popular than self reliance.
Posted by: vidyohs | Dec 15, 2007 9:45:23 AM
Russ:
Over three decades I gave thousands of accounting tests and at each I made it clear (orally and in writing) that cheating would not be tolerated, whether I stood and glared at them or read the newspaper.
When I caught cheaters they were punished. There wasn't much cheating I could find (I always graded every single page myself, no grad assistants, and I made notes on which weak students sat where).
Cheating is cheating. Widespread cheating is cheating.
Sad thing is, in this case the cheaters will have to deal with the after effects of powerful medicines (or Chinese counterfeits) administered sloppily without any clinical rationale and without a controlled regimen. Remember the late Lyle Alzedo?
Posted by: save_the_rustbelt | Dec 15, 2007 9:49:48 AM
“a pitcher who takes steroids is leveling the playing field, not getting an unfair advantage?” .... “When everyone cheats, it's not cheating any more.” .... “The school equivalent of the baseball 'scandal' would involve students taking some sort of chemical to enhance their natural mental performance. … There's nothing wrong with that…”
I have to think that all that I quoted above was artificial and produced in the defense of a viewpoint in a sort of parliamentarian debate and that it has nothing to do with the author’s real opinion.
If this is not so then I must conclude that the author is absolutely unfit to be an educator, as the society has delegated much of the teaching of playing by the rules to the educators.
That society when penalizing those who break the rules should consider all factors including human weaknesses that is an issue totally different from that of justifying the violation of the rules.
Anyone can, and if he so believes should, argue for a change in the rules… that is also quite different thing from excusing the breaking of the laws.
That the are extreme circumstances were breaking the rules are part of the rules that is also a different topic… but let us hope the USA’s main sport and social event is not classified as “extreme”
This is frightful indeed. Please release us from our doubts.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Dec 15, 2007 11:08:43 AM
Is an actor/actress cheating when he/she gets plastic surgery to maintain youthful appearance?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Dec 15, 2007 2:56:42 PM
"Is an actor/actress cheating when he/she gets plastic surgery to maintain youthful appearance?"
They're cheating aging, but since there are no rules in place over what an actor can do then no they are not.
A more comparable and appropriate analogy would be over race car driving and using something like an illegal flywheel that goes against regulation that defeats a natural playing field.
The concept of drugs in sports disgusts me. Although I care about the teams and the players because they're still in essence normal people doing extraordinary things. Once you add in drugs you destroy that illusion and you lose that connection and it becomes a race between who has the best doctors. At that point they might as well be robots.
Posted by: Raid | Dec 16, 2007 4:51:56 PM
Per,
I stand by my statement. I do not believe anyone has a moral or ethical obligation to abide by immoral and unjust rules. In fact, a good way to "argue for a change in the rules" is for a large number of those to whom the rules apply to stand up and violate the rules and receive vocal support from, say, academics and others who can clearly lay out the case for the injustice of such rules.
Posted by: Darren | Dec 16, 2007 8:52:28 PM
From what I read some keep digging themselves deeper in the hole. Let us go back to the minor issue at hand, namely the steroids. Has anyone ever heard a debate presented and argued in some cohesive way that the rules should be changed and the use of steroids allowed? I don’t think so.
It is also astonishing how anyone could argue that the sheer fact that an academician could lay out a case for some rules or laws being unjust then this could ex-ante justify violating those rules. I thought rule and law making were made by legislators and courts, listening of course to the opinions of academicians, carpenters, mothers and the many others in the society.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Dec 17, 2007 12:53:01 PM
Quite the contrary--I'm not the one in a hole. As Rahul notes above, it's utopian to believe that drugs can be driven out of the sport. I would expand on that to point out that nearly every time rules are instituted to reduce the use of a drug, the result is either 1) the creation of additional underground activity that is often even more dangerous to the individual's health, or 2) the substitution of other, less detectable drugs. It seems the burden of proof, as in government legislation, is on those who would impose such rules.
And I think you misunderstand (or are misconstruing) what I said about academics. They were just an example of many different subsets of the population who could fight the intellectual/philosophical battle while those to whom the unjust rules apply are fighting by publicly violating such rules--a sort of civil disobedience, if you will.
I think those who are obsessed with following rules for the sake of it are the ones who have facilitated the emergence of the overbearing, wealth-destroying, collectivist nanny states (or police states) that currently rule us all. It's these same confused people who continue to make patently absurd statements about how "free" we are here in America.
As Russ and Don would say, law is organic and natural. Rules and legislation are artificial--and often unjust.
Posted by: Darren | Dec 17, 2007 2:11:05 PM
"As Russ and Don would say, law is organic and natural. Rules and legislation are artificial--and often unjust."
ANARCHY RULES!!!
Posted by: Nick | Dec 18, 2007 10:46:56 AM
Darrren says: “I think those who are obsessed with following rules for the sake of it are the ones who have facilitated the emergence of the overbearing, wealth-destroying, collectivist nanny states (or police states) that currently rule us all. It's these same confused people who continue to make patently absurd statements about how "free" we are here in America.”
Bringing in those “obsessed with following rules for the sake of it” does not lead anywhere in this discussion. I am not obssesed with rules, on the contrary I feel that there are much too many of them, but does that give me the right to ignore them? No! It forces me to try to change them.
Good rules do not infringe on freedom…they put order in freedom so that it can be enjoyed!
And as a Venezuelan forced to go back to the dark ages I have of course not anything against necessary acts of civil disobedience but to make the analogy between the use of steroids and civil disobedience, does only put that whole concept into disrepute.
I repeat… young students may argue Russell Roberts´ point…educators should not!
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Dec 19, 2007 8:02:04 AM
here is the problem. i don't know how to be understanding of this. it disappoints more than anything else. it defines a time when predetermined mines the consensus. but greed in white collar is just mastery. it leaves the goals of how to connive in more question than answer. all it leaves in elders is head shaking. in youth it must be head swimming. there is a great difference that i see as the worst part. no reason to find esteem when it is confused at this level. anyone understand?
Posted by: Locke Mason | Jan 16, 2008 12:46:02 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
